Topic: Youth and Under 23 Thread

[blacksun]

The premier league needs to agree to it, fa cant just change the homegrown rules.

True but why wouldn't they? It wouldn't do anything to harm the game from their perspective

[KingKolo]

True but why wouldn't they? It wouldn't do anything to harm the game from their perspective

Being really cynical, the PL might regard Mahrez coming on at 3-0 with 15 to play as more marketable than Foden (for example).

[PhaseOfPlay]

I have always wondered why the FA don't change the rules so you can have any number of say U21 academy players on the bench in PL games. They changed it from five to seven subs thinking that would help but it just meant clubs could put more of the squad players on the bench but if you could name lets say 1 GK and 5 outfield subs and then any number of the U21 academy players (ie players who had spent 2 years in our youth system) on the bench you may find games where top teams are 3/4/5 goals up and coaches like Klopp might throw a Camacho or Wilson on for 10 or 15 mins knowing there's almost no risk

So, like 25 subs on the bench?

[blacksun]

So, like 25 subs on the bench?

Come on POP you're better than that, there's no way Klopp thinks 20 of his academy players are ready for PL football but maybe 4/5 are worth a look and having those players available for the situation I suggested may allow one or two to get 10-15 mins now and again to let the coaches see how they fair against PL players

Don't Serie A do something like this?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Come on POP you're better than that, there's no way Klopp thinks 20 of his academy players are ready for PL football but maybe 4/5 are worth a look and having those players available for the situation I suggested may allow one or two to get 10-15 mins now and again to let the coaches see how they fair against PL players

Don't Serie A do something like this?

I was intrigued by the "any number" part

I have always wondered why the FA don't change the rules so you can have any number of say U21 academy players on the bench in PL games

I don't think there's a need to do that. Nobody is being held back. If they look the part, they'll get their chance. If they're not getting their chance, then they aren't looking the part. Unfortunately, it needs 15 or so players to exist in order to create a team around the one player who has a chance to make it.

[KingKolo]

Nobody is being held back. If they look the part, they'll get their chance. If they're not getting their chance, then they aren't looking the part.

I'd  disagree there. Young players at top six clubs definitely aren't getting enough opportunities to play league game, in my humble opinion anyways.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I'd  disagree there. Young players at top six clubs definitely aren't getting enough opportunities to play league game, in my humble opinion anyways.

If they were good enough, they'd start. Every club would prefer to have cut-price youth doing what Hazard, Sterling, Salah, Alli, Martial etc., do. It saves on transfer fees and wages. But most players don't make it to that level of ability, because they don't have that level of ability. It's rare - but not unheard of, obviously - for an academy, home-grown player to slip through the net for a top 6 club. Even if they're not producing right away, they'll show enough to the scouts and first team coaches to say "this lad has it, let's keep him". But most academy players don't have that for senior level play.

Top players will always get a chance.

[Chris~]

The thing is though, 17/18 yead old sterling also wouldnt have been good enough to start over any of those. He got his chance because his competition was borini/downing/suso/enrique

[PhaseOfPlay]

The thing is though, 17/18 yead old sterling also wouldnt have been good enough to start over any of those. He got his chance because his competition was borini/downing/suso/enrique

It was actually Kuyt he first replaced, under Kenny. Kenny saw something in him, and Rodgers did too.

[Chris~]

He played less than 30 minutes under kenny, if that's the chances they're going to get they're wasting there time here.

[PhaseOfPlay]

He played less than 30 minutes under kenny, if that's the chances they're going to get they're wasting there time here.

You're not getting it. He played from the second league game under Rodgers, and hasn't looked back since. Players may not suit a given managers tactical plans, but there are no Messi's currently languishing in the under 23s. If they're good enough, they'll get a chance. If they're outstanding, they'll become starters.

[Chris~]

Again, he got that chance because our other options were not good enough. Once we upgraded he went to the bench for pretty much the entire 2nd part of that season. Who would we be dropping to give a 17/18 year old Sterling 2000 senior minutes this season? I don't think Sturridge has that with us over the last 3 seasons.

Who would sancho have replaced at city this season to get 1500+ minutes? They cant even get foden on the pitch for more than token minutes with de bruyne injured most the season.

A few 100 minutes spread over a season isnt enough for them to develop or cement a place.

U18s 1-0 up away at United through an own goal. Npt been a great match with the wind not helping

[PhaseOfPlay]

Again, he got that chance because our other options were not good enough. Once we upgraded he went to the bench for pretty much the entire 2nd part of that season. Who would we be dropping to give a 17/18 year old Sterling 2000 senior minutes this season? I don't think Sturridge has that with us over the last 3 seasons.

Who would sancho have replaced at city this season to get 1500+ minutes? They cant even get foden on the pitch for more than token minutes with de bruyne injured most the season.

A few 100 minutes spread over a season isnt enough for them to develop or cement a place.

U18s 1-0 up away at United through an own goal. Npt been a great match with the wind not helping

So what happened in 13/14, then? Those upgrades were still there.

[Bincey]

ANOTHER sending off against Utd. For the 6th time in a row!

[Bincey]

Utd down to 10 as well now.

[Bincey]

Ended 1-1. Probably about right.

[Chris~]

So what happened in 13/14, then? Those upgrades were still there.

Sterling had 2000+ minutes of development and was seen by Rodgers as a better 4th attacker than Aspas, alberto or moses. He still didnt replace or take minutes off the better players. Same way he wouldn't now here or at city if he was trying to make his initial breakthrough.

[KingKolo]

So what happened in 13/14, then? Those upgrades were still there.

Sterling had 2000+ minutes of development and was seen by Rodgers as a better 4th attacker than Aspas, alberto or moses. He still didnt replace or take minutes off the better players. Same way he wouldn't now here or at city if he was trying to make his initial breakthrough.

For the first half of the 2012/13 season, we mainly used a front three of Sterling, Suso and Suarez, with only Borini and Assaidi as competition for them. We'd fucked about with Andy Carroll all summer and ended up loaning him out without a replacement - options were very limited.

Sterling made 24 league appearances during that season, 34 in all comps. This was the platform for him to kick on and be a major contributor during the 13/14 season.

Sterling 100% would not have been getting that sort of game time for this current Liverpool team.

How many minutes would Trent have played last season if Clyne hadn't been injured? Not as many as he did, I suspect. Even Michael Owen was freakishly good at youth level and surely as obvious a top grade talent as you'll ever see around the age of 16 or 17, but he wouldn't have played as many games during his breakthrough season in 97/98 if it hadn't been for Fowler's injuries.

[El Lobo]

Life uh....finds a way. For the big, big talents they’ll always get their chances.

It’s easy to say Sterling got his breakthrough because the competition was shite. But he was a standout youngster, and clearly there was a route to the first team for him. As there was with Owen. If Sterling was 4/5 years younger, who’s to say we might not have signed Mane or Salah in the first place? If memory serves with Owen, we’d just binned off Collymore and our only other strikers where God and an aging Riedle. So yeah, he might not have played as much but he was still very likely to be first choice.

I’d like to think our manager actually pays attention to the youth teams and if there’s a big talent coming through he plans how that’ll impact the players we sign in that position.

[KingKolo]

Life uh....finds a way. For the big, big talents they’ll always get their chances.

It's just not true mate.

Is Joel Matip better than Conor Coady?

(Like the Jurassic Park ref tho)

[HopefulRed]

Like winning and losing, there is a good deal of luck about it.  Yes Trent was obviously good but Clyne’s Injury gave him gems, along with Klopp’s patience to allow him to make a few mistakes.  The few mistakes is very risky for a top 6 club. 

You only have to look at Salah at Chelsea, and all the others released by top 6 Academies who go on to have a good career, even if perhaps not a ridiculously good career to know that different players mature at different rates and just because they take the route of going off on many loans, doesn’t mean they can’t be great.  Harry Kane is an example.  I thought he was very average in the Enland U21 team, and being picked for far to long for that age group when other good players were coming through. 

[Suareznumber7]

It's just not true mate.

Is Joel Matip better than Conor Coady?

(Like the Jurassic Park ref tho)

Why would you compare two players that were never on the same team when trying to make your point?  It doesn't make any sense especially when Coady was a midfielder when he was with Liverpool. 

[El Lobo]

It's just not true mate.

Is Joel Matip better than Conor Coady?

(Like the Jurassic Park ref tho)

I’d say so yeah, not sure how that’s relevant though. Coady certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, this generational talent like Owen or Sterling. He was a good young player who, like a few others, it’d probably have been nice to keep around for squad cover and to fill a quota.

I can count on one hand the amount of players we’ve had in my lifetime who we didn’t give the chance they deserved who then went on to tear it up elsewhere. And the hand I’m using is just a nub and has no fingers.

[KingKolo]

I’d say so yeah, not sure how that’s relevant though. Coady certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, this generational talent like Owen or Sterling. He was a good young player who, like a few others, it’d probably have been nice to keep around for squad cover and to fill a quota.

I can count on one hand the amount of players we’ve had in my lifetime who we didn’t give the chance they deserved who then went on to tear it up elsewhere. And the hand I’m using is just a nub and has no fingers.

Yeah, fair play, but my argument is that the players aren't going on to tear it up anywhere because they're missing vitals years of their early careers playing U23 football.

The margin between success and failure in football is so small.

[BrandoLFC]

Yeah, fair play, but my argument is that the players aren't going on to tear it up anywhere because they're missing vitals years of their early careers playing U23 football.

The margin between success and failure in football is so small.

Do you have any actual examples to back up any of what you're saying?  I can't think of a team in the world that wouldn't prefer all of their players to be homegrown for the numerous reasons already mentioned.  Being able to know what a 16 or 18 year old is going to develop into at 21 or 23 isn't an exact science to say the least.   If a club thinks the player is going to develop into a player good enough for the first team then they're going to eventually get that chance.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Like winning and losing, there is a good deal of luck about it.  Yes Trent was obviously good but Clyne’s Injury gave him gems, along with Klopp’s patience to allow him to make a few mistakes.  The few mistakes is very risky for a top 6 club. 

You only have to look at Salah at Chelsea, and all the others released by top 6 Academies who go on to have a good career, even if perhaps not a ridiculously good career to know that different players mature at different rates and just because they take the route of going off on many loans, doesn’t mean they can’t be great.  Harry Kane is an example.  I thought he was very average in the Enland U21 team, and being picked for far to long for that age group when other good players were coming through.

Salah wasn't an academy player at Chelsea though.

[lamonti]

If they were good enough, they'd start. Every club would prefer to have cut-price youth doing what Hazard, Sterling, Salah, Alli, Martial etc., do. It saves on transfer fees and wages. But most players don't make it to that level of ability, because they don't have that level of ability. It's rare - but not unheard of, obviously - for an academy, home-grown player to slip through the net for a top 6 club. Even if they're not producing right away, they'll show enough to the scouts and first team coaches to say "this lad has it, let's keep him". But most academy players don't have that for senior level play.

Top players will always get a chance.

The absolute elite – the Sanchos and Sterlings – will get a chance, because most coach's/DoF's judgement is good enough recognise that kind of talent is so special. It's those below that level who likely to have the appetite and skill to step up given an opportunity, but those chances are fewer and fewer.

Think of how many transfers go wrong (Paul Tomkins estimates ~50%, right?) and how many players at PL clubs are bought from foreign markets using limited information. Like, what is Lichtsteiner giving Arsenal that Maitland-Niles isn't giving them?

If PL teams want to produce anything more than 1 player every couple of years, they're going to have to make a greater effort to rely on the lower level of player I mentioned. Then again, perhaps that isn't what they want, because they all have more short-term focuses, which need to be taken into account also.

[PhaseOfPlay]

The absolute elite – the Sanchos and Sterlings – will get a chance, because most coach's/DoF's judgement is good enough recognise that kind of talent is so special. It's those below that level who likely to have the appetite and skill to step up given an opportunity, but those chances are fewer and fewer.

Think of how many transfers go wrong (Paul Tomkins estimates ~50%, right?) and how many players at PL clubs are bought from foreign markets using limited information. Like, what is Lichtsteiner giving Arsenal that Maitland-Niles isn't giving them?

If PL teams want to produce anything more than 1 player every couple of years, they're going to have to make a greater effort to rely on the lower level of player I mentioned. Then again, perhaps that isn't what they want, because they all have more short-term focuses, which need to be taken into account also.

At a top club, those sub-elite players won't win you games. They are there to "subsidise" the career of that one elite talent who WILL make it into first team football at a big club. That's the ugly truth of youth and elite development

[Chris~]

The absolute elite – the Sanchos and Sterlings – will get a chance, because most coach's/DoF's judgement is good enough recognise that kind of talent is so special. It's those below that level who likely to have the appetite and skill to step up given an opportunity, but those chances are fewer and fewer.

Think of how many transfers go wrong (Paul Tomkins estimates ~50%, right?) and how many players at PL clubs are bought from foreign markets using limited information. Like, what is Lichtsteiner giving Arsenal that Maitland-Niles isn't giving them?

If PL teams want to produce anything more than 1 player every couple of years, they're going to have to make a greater effort to rely on the lower level of player I mentioned. Then again, perhaps that isn't what they want, because they all have more short-term focuses, which need to be taken into account also.

But sancho wasnt going to get enough of a chance at city, so forced a transfer to a team with a really good rep for developing young players.

[PhaseOfPlay]

But sancho wasnt going to get enough of a chance at city, so forced a transfer to a team with a really good rep for developing young players.

Says who?

[Chris~]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-latest-tottenham-circle-city-jadon-sancho-break-down-a7851981.html


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/jadon-sancho-england-squad-international-nations-league-spain-croatia-a8576546.html?amp


https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11095/11553612/jadon-sancho-explains-his-rise-to-borussia-dortmund-from-kennington-estate


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46185982

If English clubs are not giving you a chance then abroad is always an option," said winger Sancho. "They're always open to just seeing your ability and, hopefully, if you're good enough then you get your chance. That's how I felt.

Guardiola admitting he cant/doesnt give them the game time they need/needed

https://www.goal.com/en-gh/amp/news/guardiola-calls-for-second-league-as-brahim-diaz-follows/1o8qf5k2h6say1t3sfvehwz3if

And considering the lack of minutes given to their other elite talents in that age group sancho was right to do that

[PoetryInMotion]

At a top club, those sub-elite players won't win you games. They are there to "subsidise" the career of that one elite talent who WILL make it into first team football at a big club. That's the ugly truth of youth and elite development

But Top clubs do have sub-elite players in their squads, and they actually spend money on transfers to get sub-elite players. Why do that, when additional attention to the academy can save those funds?

These days the cost of sub-elite players is insanely high, and in the Premier League especially. The starting price for an unproven at the top level sub-elite player is 15m (considering how much a player of Ibe's ilk cost).

Suso is a fantastic example of a sub-elite but pushing at a good level kind of talent. If Milan was in the PL and considering how much of a regular he is and that he has 10 or more G+A in 4 of last 5 seasons, imagine how much would he cost. I think he'd be 35m in the market easy. If he was English, add another 15-20m. He'd be around 50m plus if he was proven in the PL and English. That's where we're operating now. It's not a criticism, but we did let go of him for free (also considering Suso didn't want to sign with us, and that's were the cycle comes - lack of opportunities).

If elite players can go for 70m+ in this market, sub-elite players can go for 15m to 50m easy. It's just that Top clubs are more inclined to spend that develop, because they can afford it and since they can afford it, it stops/reduces academy players from coming through. That's the cycle. If young players don't get chances at an age when coming through, the development phase gets altered and players suffer for it. Opportunities definitely play a part in the how players develop.

You could flip it and say that elite talents will get chances, but I'd say the young players who became elite did, because they got chances. There are plenty of others who have suffered in development without opportunities.

[PoetryInMotion]

Says who?

Need not be said. It's obvious. See how many useless minutes is Foden getting (The few minutes he's getting is in absolutely useless games). They need 2 times more of an injury crisis than we had when we promoted TAA to our lineup to give that kind of a chance to an academy player. Because they've that much depth already in their squad.

See the sequence of events from last season. Mendy gets injured, Guardiola tries Danilo LB first instinct. Then Danilo is needed at RB as well, then 2nd instinct is to bring an out of position player in Delph to play LB. Then he shows poor form or is not available, then finally Zinchenko comes in.  Now if Mendy is back, Zinchenko will go back to the cave. This, in a position where they're not as stocked as in others. I can't imagine them giving consistent minutes to an academy player at CM/AM/Wide positions. It's not going to happen.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Need not be said. It's obvious. See how many useless minutes is Foden getting (The few minutes he's getting is in absolutely useless games). They need 2 times more of an injury crisis than we had when we promoted TAA to our lineup to give that kind of a chance to an academy player. Because they've that much depth already in their squad.

See the sequence of events from last season. Mendy gets injured, Guardiola tries Danilo LB first instinct. Then Danilo is needed at RB as well, then 2nd instinct is to bring an out of position player in Delph to play LB. Then he shows poor form or is not available, then finally Zinchenko comes in.  Now if Mendy is back, Zinchenko will go back to the cave. This, in a position where they're not as stocked as in others. I can't imagine them giving consistent minutes to an academy player at CM/AM/Wide positions. It's not going to happen.

Foden is not a top class talent. He's decent, but he's not a "future world class" player. My statement was that top class youth academy players are not being held back. The players who are being "held back" are the players who aren't top class. They might be very good, but "very good" is not enough to displace experienced senior professionals. Messi made the first team at 18. Neymar racked up 46 appearances at 17. Cristiano Ronaldo had 31 first team appearances at 17/18. Top class talent doesn't get held back. If anything, it gets overused too early. If City had the new Messi on their books, he'd be playing right now. They don't, though. So they stick with what they have in the senior ranks. It's a false economy to think that every player is the same and deserves the same chances. It doesn't work like that. There's only one question asked by any manager about any player - "Will this player help me win games?". And if the answer is "Yes", then they will play.

[Chris~]

You have to be as good as the greatest player ever to break through is not a good argument for city, or any club giving academy players a chance.

Theres plenty of rubbish players in brazil and portugal who'll get good game time as well because those teams have to give academy kids a chance, they dont just save those minutes for the greatest players of their generations.

[PhaseOfPlay]

You have to be as good as the greatest player ever to break through is not a good argument for city, or any club giving academy players a chance

No, that IS the argument mate. Sorry. If you want a chance at a club that can spend 100 million on a single player if they wished, then yes, you have to be fucking legendary to break through from the Academy and hold down a starting spot. Or should they drop seasoned trophy-winning, high-wage professionals to give some kids a good feeling about themselves even if they don't have the chops to be top class players?

I'm not being an ass, I just really don't see where your coming from here with regards to the big clubs - if a player is good enough to compete with an established first teamer, then they'll play. It's as simple as that. No club is going to let a prized youth asset who is - as much as anything else, almost all profit if they are shit-hot as a player - fall behind and be held back by not being selected. If they are ambitious, they will want them on that team helping to create wins. If they are interested in revenue, they'll want that player in the shop window at the very least.

Top talents don't get "held back". Average ones or better-than-average ones will see their opportunities restricted. That's the game though, and it was ever thus, even before big money came into it.

[PoetryInMotion]

They might be very good, but "very good" is not enough to displace experienced senior professionals.
snip

Why?

Do you deny that even top clubs have sub-elite/rotational/squad players?

If there are "very good" young players, why do top clubs spend 30m+ to get similar level squad players? I'm flipping your argument about Neymar and Messi. They are what they're now because they got opportunities at that stage. Santos gave him the chances, but do you think every player who was given chances at Brazil become elite? Santos gave Robinho similar chances in 2002, when he was 17/18 just like they did to Neymar at such a young age. Did Robinho become elite? It's not an exact science at ages 17-18 for everyone/clubs to know who will and will not become elite and say we won't give chances to those who won't become elite. Messi came through, because Barca were genuinely interested in giving chances to their academy graduates. Pedro and Sergi Roberto also came through Barca, but nobody is calling them elite, right?

If you think it's that generic and every top club follows a similar model with respect to just promoting elite talents and discarding anything below that, then do you think Pedro is an elite player? I don't think so. Yet, he got the opportunities at Barca, and became the player he is now, which is "very good", but not elite, because Barca are a club who're decent at bringing players through the academy. Yes, they spend a lot as well, but they look at academy players from time to time. But how many other Top Clubs do that?

Do you think Mbappe could've come through PSG as easy as he did at Monaco? Yes, now we know he's Mbappe because he was given the opportunity at Monaco, but what if he was not? Do you think PSG would've spashed the cash on him without those chances at Monaco? Or would they have given him the same opportunities like Monaco did if he came through PSG academy?

Money is just not an 'EXCUSE' not to look at your academy. It just says incompetence/disinterest with the respective club's academy. Even Top clubs can bring through squad players instead of giving big cash for squad/non-elite players - see Barca. But most top clubs just don't/can't do it better, and take the easier route with spending because they can afford to. Why are Chelsea buying all those players/loaning them out and then selling them for big money? Just to bring elite talents in? Do you think they believed that all the 40 youngsters they bought and have them out on loan are elite? No. They do that because they can sell better and that they have no clue how to do that with their academy players, so they take the easier route of sending them to other clubs who will give these kids chances & then hope to hit the jackpot with a few. If every club knew how to do the same with their own academy players or had a complete idea about developing young players from talents to elite players, then they will do that, believe me. But development is not linear and they just don't know how to do that is all.

[ThePoolMan]

No, that IS the argument mate. Sorry. If you want a chance at a club that can spend 100 million on a single player if they wished, then yes, you have to be fucking legendary to break through from the Academy and hold down a starting spot. Or should they drop seasoned trophy-winning, high-wage professionals to give some kids a good feeling about themselves even if they don't have the chops to be top class players?

I'm not being an ass, I just really don't see where your coming from here with regards to the big clubs - if a player is good enough to compete with an established first teamer, then they'll play. It's as simple as that. No club is going to let a prized youth asset who is - as much as anything else, almost all profit if they are shit-hot as a player - fall behind and be held back by not being selected. If they are ambitious, they will want them on that team helping to create wins. If they are interested in revenue, they'll want that player in the shop window at the very least.

Top talents don't get "held back". Average ones or better-than-average ones will see their opportunities restricted. That's the game though, and it was ever thus, even before big money came into it.

Is Sancho an "elite talent" then in your view, Phase of Play, or is he a "sub-elite" talent? If he was an elite level talent, then the problem was is that he believed that he was not going to be treated as an elite talent and that instead he would not get enough games. If he was a sub-elite talent, then he is giving a pretty good impression of being an elite talent in the Bundesliga to the level that Premiership clubs are said to be interested in him...

This reminds me of the situation that Kevin De Bruyne faced in Chelsea...

 

[PhaseOfPlay]

Why?

Do you deny that even top clubs have sub-elite/rotational/squad players?

If there are "very good" young players, why do top clubs spend 30m+ to get similar level squad players? I'm flipping your argument about Neymar and Messi. They are what they're now because they got opportunities at that stage.

God no. No, no, and a thousand times no.

They are what they because they have talent and work rate. Players may go off the rails once they make it (Robinho, for example), but they get their chance because they stand out from their peers, then they stand out from most of the senior professionals who don't have their talent, once the start playing against them.

I'll give you another example - Gareth Bale. 40-something games at age 18 for Southampton.

Talent will out. Professionalism will keep them there. Work ethic will make them great.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Is Sancho an "elite talent" then in your view, Phase of Play, or is he a "sub-elite" talent? If he was an elite level talent, then the problem was is that he believed that he was not going to be treated as an elite talent and that instead he would not get enough games. If he was a sub-elite talent, then he is giving a pretty good impression of being an elite talent in the Bundesliga to the level that Premiership clubs are said to be interested in him...

This reminds me of the situation that Kevin De Bruyne faced in Chelsea...

De Bruyne wasn't a Chelsea academy player.

And Sancho left (from what I read) City because he wasn't given playing time assurances written into his contract. Not because he didn't think he was going to get a chance.